Thursday, May 31, 2012

Ijaz Ahmad vs. the Prophet Zechariah - Part II

In
a previous post replying to Ijaz Ahmad, I demonstrated that Zechariah’s overall theology is generally
supportive of my thesis that the Angel of the Lord is the distinctive title for
a second divine person in the Godhead in so far as the book of Zechariah teaches
that there are two divine persons. In this post I will show not only that
Zechariah teaches that there is a second divine person, but that the Angel of
the Lord in particular is identified as Yahweh.

The
first passage that can be mentioned is found in Zechariah 3, which presents a
courtroom scene in heaven. The passage reads:

1 Then he showed me
Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan
standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 The Lord said to Satan,
“The Lord rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke
you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?” 3 Now Joshua was
clothed with filthy garments and standing before the angel. 4 He
spoke and said to those who were standing before him, saying, “ Remove the
filthy garments from him.” Again he said to him, “See, I have taken your
iniquity away from you and will clothe you with festal robes.” 5 Then
I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban
on his head and clothed him with garments, while the angel of the Lord was
standing by.

6 And the angel of the
Lord admonished Joshua, saying, 7 “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘If
you will walk in My ways and if you will perform My service, then you will also
govern My house and also have charge of My courts, and I will grant you free
access among these who are standing here.

Here
an interpreting angel shows Zechariah what took place between three named
figures and several who are not named: the Angel of the Lord, Satan, Joshua the
high priest, and those who are told to remove Joshua’s filthy garments and
replace them with clean clothes and also a clean turban.

While
a clear distinction is drawn between the Angel and Yahweh, as is evident when
the Angel refers to the Lord in the third person:

Nevertheless
the Angel in this same vision is also identified as Yahweh. Verse 2 reads in
full:

The Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke
you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?”

So
it is not simply that the Angel speaks about the Lord in the third person, but
that it is as the Lord that He does so. Both the one who speaks, i.e. the
Angel, and the one about whom He speaks, i.e. the one called on to rebuke
Satan, are Yahweh.

This
accounts for why the Angel is cast in the role of heavenly judge, the one who
presides over the whole affair. Note, in this courtroom scene everyone is
standing before the Angel, and it is before the Angel that Satan accuses
Joshua:

Then
he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the
Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. (v. 1)

He
spoke and said to those who were standing before him… (v. 4)

As
commentator Eugene H. Merrill rightly observes:

The
setting of the vision is quite clear. Joshua is standing in a tribunal, where
he is being accused of unfitness for the priestly ministry. The judge is the
messenger (or angel) of YHWH. The implied definite article [based on the
construction in Hebrew – AR] makes it virtually certain that this being is the
same as the messenger of YHWH in 1:11, 12. There he was distinguished from YHWH
Himself (v. 12), but here he is
identified with Him (v. 2).6 This [i.e. that the Messenger is being
identified with YHWH – AR] appears even more likely inasmuch as Satan is
accusing Joshua before the messenger, a notion that finds NO SUPPORT ELSEWHERE
in the Bible. The adversary ALWAYS
argues his case BEFORE GOD, not a representative of God, as the very
similar scene in the prologue of Job establishes beyond doubt. (Merrill, An Exegetical Commentary: Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi [Chicago: Moody Press, 1994]), pp. 131-132.

6.
This is so obviously true, and problematic, that most modern scholars following
the Syriac…, emend “YHWH” to “Angel of YHWH.” See, e.g. H. G. Mitchell, A Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah,
ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 143. Such special pleading is
oblivious to the witness of the OT to the interchangeability of YHWH and the
Angel of YHWH.

Shortly
after saying the above, Merrill goes on:

A
possible objection to the identification of the messenger with YHWH in our
passage is that the messenger appears to quote YHWH in vv. 6-7, thus
differentiating himself from YHWH. However, this is not a serious problem at
all, for a careful reading of Angel of YHWH passages makes it clear that the
messenger, though distinguished from YHWH, often speaks as YHWH (cf. Gen. 16:7-13;
21:17; 22:11-12; 15-16; 31:11-13; Judg. 6:11-24; 13:15-20). That is, the
messenger of YHWH is YHWH as He discloses Himself to human beings. (Merrill, ibid.), p. 132

What
is said above about the Angel/Yahweh is similar to what we see in another
courtroom scene, where once again Satan appears to accuse a godly man, and once
again it is before Yahweh that He does so:

6 Now there was a day
when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “From where do
you come?” Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “From roaming about on the
earth and walking around on it.” 8 The Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For
there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God
and turning away from evil.” 9 Then Satan answered the Lord, “Does Job fear God for
nothing? 10 Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all
that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his
possessions have increased in the land. 11 But put forth Your hand now
and touch all that he has; he will surely curse You to Your face.” 12 Then
the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all
that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him.” So Satan
departed from the presence of the Lord.
(Job 1:6-12)

Another
passage relevant to the above is found in 1 Kings, where once again it is the
Lord who presides as heavenly judge:

Micaiah
said, “Therefore, hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord SITTING ON HIS THRONE, and all the host of heaven
standing by Him on His right and on His left. (1 Kings 22:19; cf. 2
Chronicles 18:18)

These
passages about the Lord presiding over the heavenly council evince the deity of
the Angel who is called Yahweh and who is seen in Zechariah 3 doing this exact
thing. Anyone who heard or read the words of this later prophet who was
familiar with the previous Scriptures would have recognized the equation that
Zechariah makes when he speaks of the Angel of the Lord the same way the
Scriptures spoke of Yahweh. Of course those acquainted with what had already
been revealed up to the time of Zechariah would not have been stumbled by this,
for the Angel is repeatedly identified as Yahweh throughout Israel’s history.

That
the Angel is Lord also accounts for why He exercises the exclusively divine
prerogative of forgiving sin in this passage, which is symbolically enacted under
the Angel’s/Lord’s direction by the removal of Joshua’s filthy garments and Joshua
being outfitted with festal robes for God’s service, an utterly gracious act
that results in the Lord of Hosts promising Joshua, as high priest, free access
among those who stand in God’s court:

He
spoke and said to those who were standing before him, saying, “Remove the filthy garments from him.”
Again He said to him, “See, I HAVE TAKEN YOUR INQUITY AWAY from you
and will clothe you with festal robes.” (v. 4)

We see that the Angel of the Lord has the power to exercise this divine prerogative elsewhere as well, and
once again He is identified as the one who bears the very name of God.

20 “Behold, I send an
angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I
have prepared. 21 Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice;
do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my
name is in him. (Exodus 23:20-21)

In
fact, the Lord in the very next chapter of Exodus refers to the Angel as Yahweh:

1 Then He said to Moses, “Come UP TO the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab, and
Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and WORSHIP from afar. 2 Moses
alone shall come NEAR TO the Lord,
but the others shall not come near, and the people shall not come up with him.”
(Exodus 24:1-2)

This
was well understood by ancient Jews, as the later efforts of the Talmudic
rabbis to suppress this teaching among Jews demonstrates. For example, the
Babylonian Talmud records the following conversation between Rav Idi and a min,
i.e. a “heretic.”

Rav Nahman
said: A person who knows how to answer the minim as Rav Idi, let him
answer, and if not, let him not answer.

A certain min
said to Ravi Idi: “It is written, ‘And to Moses he said, come up unto the LORD
[Exod. 24:1].’ It should have said, ‘Come up to me’!”

He [Rav Idi]
said to him: “This was Metatron, whose name is like the name of his master, as
it is written, ‘for My name is in him’ [Exod. 23:21].”

“But if so,
we should worship him!”

“It is
written, ‘Do not rebel against him’ [Exod. 23:21] — Do not confuse him with
me!”

“If so, then
why does it say ‘He will not forgive your sins’”?

“We
have sworn that we would not even receive him as a guide, for it is written ‘If
Your face goes not [do not bring us up from here]’ [Exod. 33:15].” (Babylonian
Talmud, 38b)

Orthodox
Jewish scholar Daniel Boyarin offers the following penetrating analysis of this
portion of the Talmud:

God has been
addressing the Jewish people as a whole (in Exodus chapter 23), informing them
that he will send his angel before them and instructing them how to behave with
respect to this angel. He then turns to Moses and tells him to come up to YKWK
(the Tetragrammaton), implying quite strongly that “YKWK” of whom he speaks is
not the same “YKWK” who is the speaker of the verse: Two YKWKs. This is, in
fact, precisely the sort of argument that a Justin Martyr would have produced
from Scripture to argue for a “second person” (the Logos). And so the minim
conclude that there is a second power in heaven. Rav Idi, in refuting them,
turns back to the previous chapter and remarks that verse 21 there explicitly
says that “My name is in him [that is in the angel].” Metatron, that angel,
therefore, could be called by the name “YKWK,” and it is to him that Moses is
being instructed to ascend. What this amounts to is claiming that there are not
two divine powers in heaven but only God and an angel whom he has named as God
as well.

At this
point, the min responds by saying that if Metatron is indeed called by the
ineffable name, then we ought to worship him as well; in other words, that Rav
Idi’s own answer can be turned against him. To this, Rav Idi retorts that the
verse also says “Do not rebel against him,” which by a typical midrashic
sleight of hand can be read as “Do not substitute him,” that is, even though
Metatron is called by God’s name, do not pray to him. Al tamer bo [Do
not rebel against him] has been read as Al tamireni bo: Don’t substitute
him for me. The very verse in which Israel is enjoined to obey the second YKWK
has been turned by a pun into its exact opposite. The min says if that is what
is meant, then why does it continue in the verse and say that he, Metatron,
will not forgive sins? The min is arguing that if the people are being
warned not to rebel against Metatron, because he is as powerful as God, then it
makes sense to tell them that he will not forgive their sins if they do rebel,
but if he is not God at all, then it is otiose to tell them that he will not
forgive sins. Only if he has the power to redeem sins does it make sense to declare
that he will not rebel [sic; forgive?] their sins if they rebel against him.
(Of course, the rabbinic reading is: Don’t confuse him with me for he cannot
redeem sins but only I can. The “heretical” reading, I’m afraid, is much
stronger and more adequate to the language) …

I would
suggest, moreover, that, in typical midrashic fashion, another verse lies
underneath this comment of the min. Joshua 24:19 reads: “It will be very
difficult for you [lit. you will not be able to] worship YKWK, for He is a holy
God; He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your sins and your iniquities.”
In other words, the logic would run: if there it remarks of YKWK that he will
not forgive sins and iniquities, then if the same language is being used here,
ought it not indicate that the divine figure being spoken of has the same
attributes as YKWK? Moreover, if there the context is one of worshipping YKWK,
then here too worship of Metatron, the second Lord or lesser Yahu [as the
Talmud calls him – AR], would seem to be implicated as well. The comparison is
rendered even stronger when we notice that exactly the same context is involved
in both the Exodus and the Joshua verse, namely the expulsion of the Canaanites
from the land of Israel and the warnings to the people of Israel to be worthy
of this benefit and to worship YKWK, or their sin will not be forgiven at all.
It certainly seems as if this verse in Exodus can be read as equating Metatron
to YKWK and therefore demanding worship for both figures.To this
answer comes that “we” the Jews, through our leader Moses, already have
declared that we do not even want him, Metatron, to be our guide in the desert,
as the cited verse says: “If your face goes before us not.” In other words, the
angelic regent was of such non importance that, far from considering him worthy
of being worshipped, Moses would not even accept him as a guide.

In this, as
in many other cases of such hermeneutical encounters, the min certainly seems
to have the upper hand to begin with, for there are many scriptural texts that
plausibly can be read as supporting the notion of an angelic vice-regent with
many of the powers of God, or even the notion of a virtual second God. Indeed,
more than anything else, this very scriptural background may have given the
greatest impetus to the various second-God theologies of Jews, including Logos,
Memra, Sophia, Metatron, Son of Man, Son of God, and Christ. Rav Idi, the
clever Midrashist, exploits all the tricks in his bag in order to discredit the
min’s quite straightforward interpretation of the verses in question: “Behold I
send before you an angel, to watch over you on the way and to bring you to the
place I have prepared. Be careful before him and obedient to him. Do not
disobey him, for he will not forgive your sins, for My name is in him.”
Although, to be sure, the second of these two verses presents difficulties, at
the very least it would seem that this — fairly straightforward — translation
does imply that this angel has the power to command and to remit sins (which he
will not employ), as God has delegated to him something of divine power. Just
as in the Joshua verse, we are told that God … “is a jealous God; He will not
forgive your sins and your iniquities,” so here, Metatron is such a divine
being too. The min quite reasonably suggests that one ought to pray to such a
divine being, Metatron, on Rav Idi’s showing.

In
order to escape this seeming ineluctable conclusion, Rav Idi proposes to read
the verse as if saying, “Be careful before him and obedient to him. Do not confuse
him with me, for he will not forgive your sins, for my name is in him.” Aside
from the fact that this translation renders the verse considerably less
coherent in its logic, it also makes this angel seem absolutely insignificant,
hardly worthy of mention, to which Rav Idi answers (and this is his brilliant
move) that indeed that is so. The Israelites have already registered their
rejection of any interest in this insignificant angel when they insisted that
God Himself must go before them and no other, thus dramatizing the rejection of
the Son of Man theology, a rejection that the Rabbis themselves perform.
(Boyarin, The
Genealogy of Rabbinic Judaism; or, the Death and Resurrection of the Son of Man,
p. 2-5)

To
this rather unflattering look at one example of how the Rabbis sought to
counter the Biblical evidence that many Jews at one time believed, it should be
added that Rav Idi’s so-called “brilliant move,” one that rests on a
manipulation of the Hebrew text that “renders the verse considerably less
coherent in its logic,” involves a colossal mistake, or perhaps another example
of exegetical sleight of hand. This is because it wasn’t the name-bearing Angel
that the Israelites rejected by saying they wanted God’s very presence/face to
go before them. The promise that the Angel would go before them is given in
Exodus 23, and no such complaint as Rav Idi mentions occurs at the time when
this is announced. It is only after the incident of the golden-calf (Exodus 32),
when God says He will not in fact go with them as previously announced (Exodus
33), which can only refer back to Exodus 23, that God says He will not
accompany them but will send what is evidently an ordinary angel instead. For
Moses this punishment is too severe, so he intercedes with God and beseeches
Him to go up with them. Moses would rather die than for God not to go before
them Himself. At the intercession of Moses, the Lord relents and renews the
promise that He will go with them.

In
other words, if the sin of the golden-calf led to a change from the
name-bearing Angel going before them to simply an angel rather than God Himself
going before them, something Moses found intolerable, then it is evident that
the Angel is God. So in the sweep of the entire narrative the Angel is shown to
be the very presence or face of God.

And
this is exactly how the prophet Isaiah presents the matter when reflecting back
on the Lord’s prior dealings with His people, for in the following passage he
refers to the Angel of the Exodus, the one who saved them, as “the Angel of His
presence/face”:

7 I shall make mention of
the lovingkindnesses of the Lord, the praises of the Lord,According
to all that the Lord has granted us,And
the great goodness toward the house of Israel,Which
He has granted them according to His compassionAnd
according to the abundance of His lovingkindnesses.8 For He said, “Surely,
they are My people,Sons
who will not deal falsely.”So
He became their Savior.9 In all their affliction
He was afflicted,And
the angel of His presence saved them;In
His love and in His mercy He redeemed them,And
He lifted them and carried them all the days of old.10 But they rebelledAnd
grieved His Holy Spirit;Therefore
He turned Himself to become their enemy,He
fought against them.11 Then His people
remembered the days of old, of Moses.Where
is He who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of His flock?Where
is He who put His Holy Spirit in the midst of them,12 Who caused His glorious
arm to go at the right hand of Moses,Who
divided the waters before them to make for Himself an everlasting name,13 Who led them through the
depths?Like
the horse in the wilderness, they did not stumble;14 As the cattle which go
down into the valley,The
Spirit of the Lord gave them rest.So
You led Your people,To
make for Yourself a glorious name. (Isaiah 63:7-14)

A
final passage in Zechariah that will be mentioned here relevant to the deity of
the Angel of the Lord is the following, where the Lord declares:

6 “In that day I will make
the clans of Judah like a firepot among pieces of wood and a flaming torch
among sheaves, so they will consume on the right hand and on the left all the
surrounding peoples, while the inhabitants of Jerusalem again dwell on their
own sites in Jerusalem. 7 The Lord also will save the tents of
Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the
inhabitants of Jerusalem will not be magnified above Judah. 8 In
that day the Lord will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who is
feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will
be like God, like the angel of the Lord before them. 9 And in
that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against
Jerusalem. (Zechariah 12:6-9)

In
the above passage the Lord says that a day is coming when the weak will become
strong. The way the prophet says this is striking: He says that the feeble of
Jerusalem “will be like David,” and the house of David “will be like God, like
the angel of the Lord before them.” What is so striking about this is that the
statement “will be like God” is set in apposition to “like the Angel of the
Lord before them.” An appositional statement is one where one statement follows
another, with the latter serving as the explanatory equivalent of the first. In
other words, according to Zechariah 12:9, “to be like God” is the equivalent of
and means precisely to be “like the Angel of the Lord.”

When
Zechariah says the house of David would be “like the Angel of the Lord before
them,” the final words recall those of the Exodus, where God promises that the
Angel who bears His name would go “before you,” i.e. Israel.

This
means for all my opponents appeal to Zechariah one in an effort to deny the deity
of the Angel, it is clearly out of touch with what Zechariah in fact taught.
Zechariah was not a unitarian, and that’s why Muslims are only giving
lip-service when they say they believe in all the prophets and all the previous books. In fact
they don’t, and the testimony of Zechariah is only the tip of the Old Testament
ice-berg that demonstrates this to be the case.

41 comments:

I enjoyed the part where the rabbi said: "The “heretical” reading, I’m afraid, is much stronger and more adequate to the language)"

In his own indirect way, CC is trying to conjure up a being like "Metatron" giving Yahweh a partner. But here is a question if CC believes the Old Testament is corrupted, why does he need it to teach Unitarian Theology when the exact opposite is the case?

Here it says: "The Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?”

Now the Lord is referring to the Lord.

But since the Quran is such a shambles, CC might just argue that the OT is like the Quran. And say "God is referring to himself in third person". This is actually all to common throughout the Quran:

"Glory be TO HIM Who made HIS servant to go on a night from the Sacred Mosque to the remote mosque of which WE have blessed the precincts, so that WE MAY show to him some of OUR signs; surely HE is the Hearing, the Seeing."

I've never read such a confusing shambles of literature in my life. Accordingly the "we" and the "he" are all meant to be the same Lord, despite the direct distinctions being made between them.

Verse 7-8 make this distinction all the more clear:

"Then, when the promise of the second came to pass, WE sent against you OUR servants to discountenance you, and to enter the Temple, as they entered it the first time, and to destroy utterly that which they ascended to. Perchance YOUR LORD will have mercy upon you; BUT if you return, WE shall return; and WE have made Gehenna a prison for the unbelievers."

A total utter and complete shambles.

Here is some more:

What, shall I seek after any judge but God? For it is He who sent down to you the Book well-distinguished; and those whom We have given the Book know it is sent down from thy Lord with the truth; so be not thou of the doubters. S. 6:114

What, is every man of them eager to be admitted to a Garden of Bliss? Not so; for We have created them of what they know. No! I swear by the Lord of the Easts and Wests, surely We are able to substitute a better than they; We shall not be outstripped. S. 70:38-41

In these verses in mid sentence, Mohammed has conflated the words of Allah with his own direct speech or it is the speech of Allah and there really is two lords.

Anthony this is why I think it's so easy for CC to read the Quranic mess within the Bible. Allah is changing his pronouns left and right confusing the "hell" out of the reader here.

Yes, Boyarin is an incredible scholar at the top of his field, and his willingness to say things like that even though he is Jewish is one indication why. The man has scholastic integrity.

Obviously as a matter if Islamically driven faith CC believes the OT has been corrupted and is not reliable, but to admit that the OT was corrupted by Jews so that it comports with Trinitarianism is to admit that Jews believed something along Trinitarian lines before Jesus, for the DSS confirm the present reading of the OT, and this seriously weakens, and, in reference to some arguments from Muslims against the NT witness, completely destroys how they try to argue against the teaching of the apostles.

In fact, the catalyst for my challenge to Ijaz to debate this subject concerned his claims that James could not be identifying Jesus as Lord in the OT sense of Yahweh, for James was a Jew and Jews were unitarians. At another time he said it is illicit to read James in this way because Christianity and Judaism are two entirely different religions with different conceptions of God. As you can no doubt see, admitting that many Jews had long since believed in a plurality of persons in the Godhead before and during the time of Christ completely undermines his would-be argument on this score.

One problem with trying to say that Zechariah 3:2 is only the Lord speaking of Himself in the third person is that it would only mean contextually then that the Angel of the Lord spoke of Himself as Lord in the third person. In the vision the prophet sees the ATL, Joshua, Satan and several court attendants. All of them are standing before the ATL, and Satan's accusations are spoken for the benefit of the ATL, i.e. to move Him to make an unfavorable judgment concerning Joshua. He is the one before whom everyone is standing. He is the one presiding. So when it records the reaction to the words Satan spoke against Joshua before the Angel, saying, "The Lord said to Satan, 'the Lord rebuke you'", it is the Angel who is replying, which means that the Angel is the one referred to by the words "The Lord said...".

As for the Qur'an, which ends up being largely incoherent when it presents its supposedly unitarian deity speaking in the way that it does, I have dealt with this at length.

We have sworn that we would not even receive him as a guide, for it is written ‘If Your face goes not [do not bring us up from here]’ [Exod. 33:15].” (Babylonian Talmud, 38b)

My response

Obviously Rogers didn’t check this out if it was true. Here it says the source is (Babylonian Talmud, 38b) there are about 34 volumes in the Talmud. It is like saying Bible 28. Rogers can you tell us which volume it is in.

Anthony Rogers wrote

Orthodox Jewish scholar Daniel Boyarin offers the following penetrating analysis of this portion of the Talmud:then turns to Moses and tells him to come up to YKWK (the Tetragrammaton), implying quite strongly that “YKWK” of whom he speaks is not the same “YKWK” who is the speaker of the verse:

(Boyarin, The Genealogy of Rabbinic Judaism; or, the Death and Resurrection of the Son of Man, p. 2-5

My response

No orthodox Jewish scholar would write like this [YKWK (the Tetragrammaton)] also the link does not work. So can you actually get the correct sources?

Nitemare said: "Obviously Rogers didn’t check this out if it was true. Here it says the source is (Babylonian Talmud, 38b) there are about 34 volumes in the Talmud. It is like saying Bible 28. Rogers can you tell us which volume it is in."

You are right, I didn't put the rest of the source information in. However, that shouldn't have been a problem for you; after all, you are the Jewish guy in this discussion, supposedly.

But since you need help finding it, this "goy" is happy to be of service:

Nitemare said: "No orthodox Jewish scholar would write like this [YKWK (the Tetragrammaton)] also the link does not work. So can you actually get the correct sources?"

So you say, but Boyarin is an Orthodox Jew, and he did write it. Perhaps it was out of reverence; perhaps it was a typo. Who knows?

You either do not have clearance to read the article, which isn't my problem, or they have stopped making it available at that link. In any event, he has also included his discussion of this in a revised and expanded form in his book: Border Lines, which I have on my shelf. If you don't, which is evidently the case, try Amazon.

David,Hebrews 1:8 is proof of God the Father addressing God the Son as God. God speaking of Himself in third person. Ha! Get it? Third person. God IS three persons!! No wonder He speaks of Himself in third person form.Luke

Anthony, you do quite an amazing job with all this. I'm genuinely sorry I didn't pay more attention when the debate was rolling around, from here on out I'm reading everything you write. By the way, I actually know who Daniel Boyarin is. Great guy, you ever read "The Jewish Gospels" ? I haven't read the book you're referencing, but I do like his work on Ancient Judaism at the time when Jesus came around. Should I get "Border Lines" , or any of his other works? Which ones would you suggest?

I see your problem you must be a Christian to whom if some one says he is a god he must be a god after all he said so.

Let me explain it so even a simpleton can understand.

Genesis Chapter 32:25 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day

Here it says a man wrestled with Jacob. How do we know an angel can be called a man?These verses will show it.

Daniel 9:21...while I [Daniel] was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice.Gabriel is a chief angel.

Genesis 18:1—2 The L--rd appeared to [Abraham] in the plains of Mamre, while he was sitting at the door of the tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and saw and behold, three men were standing over him....Here it says the men went toward Sodom.

Genesis Chapter 18:22 And the men turned from thence, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham stood yet before the LORD. 23 And Abraham drew near, and said: 'Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?

Here it says two angels came to Sodom. This is proof that when the Bible says man it can mean angel.

Genesis Chapter 19:1 And the two angels came to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom; and Lot saw them, and rose up to meet them; and he fell down on his face to the earth;

Hosea 5 So he strove with an angel, and prevailed; he wept, and made supplication unto him; at Beth-el he would find him, and there he would speak with us.

So both these verses explicitly say that it was an angel who wrestled.Now the missionary is claiming hey but wait men said he was a god so it must be we Christians are taught anyone who says they are a god we say ok we believe you. (To be continued )

Here I posted your own book. So tell us why don’t you say that Moses is one of your godheads.?http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%207&version=NKJVExodus 7:1New King James Version (NKJV)7 So the Lord said to Moses: “See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophethttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2028&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-7956aHere your book admits it says Hebrew elohim same as all the other verses in Genesis. We ask again so is Samuel one of your godheads?.1 Samuel 28 New King James Version (NKJV13 And the king said to her, “Do not be afraid. What did you see?”And the woman said to Saul, “I saw a spirit[a] ascending out of the earth.”

1 Samuel 28:13 Hebrew elohim14 So he said to her, “What is his form?”And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is covered with a mantle.” And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground and bowed down.

15 Now Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”The actual translation is below.14. And he said to her, "What is his form?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a cloak." And Saul knew that he was Samuel; and he bowed down with his face to the ground, and prostrated himself.

So Genesis Chapter 32:25 and Hosea 5 both claim that it was an angel. Now we have to look at who the authors are of these verses. In Genesis Chapter 32:25 the author is clearly the author of the Torah which is G-D. Now lets see Hosea 5 who is the author clearly it is Hosea. So we have G-D claiming it was an angel and the missionary claiming that since a man said it was G-D so we must follow the man. This is correct in Christianity however in Judaism, I don’t have to post the verses, it Cleary says to follow G-D. In Hosea 5 we also follow a prophet over a man. That means it was an angel and than we have to answer why these men said what they said it is not the opposite the men said it was G-D so we question G-D and the prophet why they said it was an angel. Do you follow missionary.?

In fact it is funny that the missionary in his diatribe actually gave us one answer as to why they may have said they saw G-D “ My Name is in him”

Exodus 23:20--21Behold, I am sending an angel before you [the Jews], to protect you on the way, and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Obey him and listen to his voice; be not rebellious against him; for he will not pardon your transgression, for My Name is in him(To be continued )

He spoke and said to those who were standing before him, saying, “Remove the filthy garments from him.” Again He said to him, “See, I HAVE TAKEN YOUR INQUITY AWAY from you and will clothe you with festal robes.” (v. 4

My response.Can the missionary tell me what exactly was the iniquity

The missionary qoutes Daniel Boyarin which by a typical midrashic sleight of hand can be read as “Do not substitute him,” that is, even though Metatron is called by God’s name.

Now let me show you a missionaries sleight of hand. Deuteronomy Chapter 6:4 Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Now with missionaries sleight of hand one becomes three. In fact this has been a major source of contention between Jews and Christians for some time. A Jew would borrow 3 dollars from a Christian and pay him back one claiming that one=three.

The missionary writes.This is because it wasn’t the name-bearing Angel that the Israelites rejected by saying they wanted God’s very presence/face to go before them. The promise that the Angel would go before them is given in Exodus 23, and no such complaint as Rav Idi mentions occurs at the time when this is announced. It is only after the incident of the golden-calf (Exodus 32), when God says He will not in fact go with them as previously announced (Exodus 33), which can only refer back to Exodus 23, that God says He will not accompany them but will send what is evidently an ordinary angel instead.

My responseIf that were the case that it was changed to an ordinary angel than why didn’t they ask for the original angel

No, that is not the case the reason they didn’t register a complaint before hand is because it was not in the form of a punishment it was in the form of a triumphant entry with the angel leading the charge. Only later when it was set forth as a punishment did they complain.

Due to unlimited time we cant refute all at this time. However I did copy the whole diatribe and when I finish the refutation I will post it on my web site and this one if they allow it.

Royal Son said... I will hazard a guess that YKWK was intentionally spelt as such to avoid uttering the Divine Name, albeit in textual form.

Nightmare, do you honestly think a top Jewish scholar who teaches at a university has no clue about the Tetragrammaton?

My response.how do you know he is a top Jewish scholar.

Moses didn’t teach in a university and he knew more than this guy.

Anthony Rogers said... Yes, Boyarin is an incredible scholar at the top of his field, and his willingness to say things like that even though he is Jewish is one indication why. The man has scholastic integrity.

Not long after Christ's ascension into heaven, several histories of his life and doctrines, full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders, were composed by persons whose intentions perhaps were not bad, but whose writings discovered the greatest superstition and ignorance. Nor was this all; productions appeared which were imposed upon the world by fraudulent men, [such] as the writings of the holy apostles."33. Von Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History (London, 1810), vol. 1, p. 109.

Dr. I. Hooykaas, Nineteenth--Century Reverend:

Not one of these five books (four Gospels and Acts) [was] really written by the person whose name it bears, and they are all of more recent date than the heading would lead us to suppose.9

Anthony Rogers said... Also, for a man who does not believe that God kept His promise to send the Messiah, you sure have a lot of gall charging anyone with a false prophecy. Your belief makes all the prophets liars.

My response

what are you talking about? You may mean the Christian false teachings of these prophets make them liars. Show me one false prophecy of the messiah in the book of the prophets.

Fifth Monarchy Man said... Hey Anthony,This is great stuff. You need to put it all together in a book. The OT is dripping with the Trinity but most folks don't take the time to actually look closely for nuggets like this.

Are you sure about that. Tell me how many times does it have to say that G-D is not a man.

Numbers 23:1919. God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a mortal that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?

Ezekiel 28:22. "Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre: So said the Lord God: Because your heart is proud, and you said, 'I am a god, I have sat in a seat of God, in the heart of the seas,' but you are a man and not a god, yet you have made your heart like the heart of God.

Hosea 11:99. I will not execute the kindling of My anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim, for I am God and not a man. In your midst is the Holy One, and I will not enter a city.

I Samuel 15:2929. And also, the Strength of Israel will neither lie nor repent, for He is not a man to repent."

Isaiah 51:1212. I, yea I am He Who consoles you; who are you that you fear man who will die and the son of man, who shall be made [as] grass?

Psalm 8:55. what is man that You should remember him, and the son of man that You should be mindful of him?

Psalm 146:33. Do not trust in princes, in the son of men, who has no salvation.

Job 9:3232. For He is not man like me, that I should answer Him, 'Let us come together in debate.'

Job 25:5-65. Behold, He removes the moon and it will not shine, and the stars are not pure in His eyes.6. How much less, man, who is a worm, and the son of man, who is a maggot!"

Job 33:1212. Behold this. 'You are not right,' I will answer you, for God exceeds man.

The popular response to many of these is that the emphasis (theirs, mind you) of these verses isn't on God saying He isn't a man, but on the latter parts of those.

If someone says "I, man, am not a dog that I should lap up water from a bowl on the ground" would you understand that to mean that the speaker actually is a dog, and the "I am not a dog" part is unimportant fodder for the main point, which is "I don't need to lap water from a bowl on the ground"?

Or perhaps would "I, man, am not a dog" clue you into the fact that the speaker is not a dog one way or another?

Likewise, God says He is not a man. Not partially a man, sometimes a man, or even a one-off appearance as a man, but flat out, "God is not a man". Throughout the Tanach God, His prophets, the Psalms and writings say that God is not a man, and that man is not God nor a god. Job 9:32 For He is not a man, as I am, that I should answer Him, that we should come together in judgment. 9:33 There is no arbiter betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both.

Hazakim1 said... Nitemares must not know....the "best & brightest" of Rabbinic Judaism have had their arguments gracefully & mercifully obliterated my Messianic scholars such as Dr Michael Brown. These rabbinic heavy hitters like Rabbi Tovia Singer & Shmuley Boteach have all been addressed. Just Google these debates & give them a listen! All praise due to the Messiah of Israel & the world - Yeshua of Nazareth!!!

My response. "best & brightest" ? You or your Christians cant even win a debate with me and I offer 25 million dollars for any Christian or Muslim who can defeat me in a debate. Oh and here is your brown defeated by heavy hitters.

Jacob Neusner“In the Middle Ages Rabbis were forced to engage with priests in disputations in the presence of kings and cardinals on which is the true religion, Judaism or Christianity. The outcome was predetermined. Christians won; they had the swords.”

Christians cant answer one question I ask about their god. Jews can answer every thing. Supposed some one asked me why at that point in history did G-D make a flood and wipe every one out, there were bad people before and after. We have the answer. However when I ask Christians why their god suddenly came to wrestle with Jacob they don’t know. I ask them why their god came again at that particular time to teach his new gospels they don’t know. Yet you claim you win debates against Rabbis? you are a joke.

Pete (aka Nitemare), I am beginning to think you are the Osama Abdallah of Judaism. But I guess everyone has at least one in the family.

I can't believe you seriously offered up that dribble as some kind of a refutation of what I have written here.

First, I am not sure why you thought it important to try and convince me that an angel can appear in the form of a man. I am well aware of that. It is also the case that the word "angel" can be used for a man. Moreover, the word can also be used for God, as we see in Ecclesiastes 5:6 and Malachi 3:1. So I am not sure how your observation is supposed to be helpful in itself when it comes to the story of a man wrestling with Jacob according to Genesis 32. Given the options - 1. God, 2. angel, and 3. man - how do you know what kind of being appeared to Jacob and wrestled with him? I know how I discern the answer: I do the unheard of and look at the context. In this case, the context goes on to say:

"And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: {That is, The face of God. } 'for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Genesis 32:30, JPS)

And since I have an embarrassment of riches, which means I have not only the words God gave to Moses in the Torah but also the words of a later prophet, in this case Hosea, I can also find prophetic confirmation for this view elsewhere. And unlike yourself, Pete, I don't have to excise the rest of the verse that you quoted. Here it is for you AGAIN together with the part you AGAIN left out:

2 The LORD hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways, according to his doings will He recompense him. 3 In the womb he took his brother by the heel, and by his strength he strove with a godlike being; 4 So he strove with an angel, and prevailed; he wept, and made supplication unto him; at Beth- el he would find him, and there he would speak with us; 5 But the LORD, the God of hosts, the LORD is His name. (Hosea 12:2-5, JPS)

Note: It does not simply call the man who wrestled with Jacob "the Angel," but "God"; more than that, it calls Him Yahweh.

Not only do the Scriptures teach that the name of Yahweh belongs to Him alone and cannot be given to any creature, but this was also the view of Jews during the intertestamental period, as witness for example the Wisdom of Solomon (14:21), and even the johnny-come-lately Talmudic Rabbis who called the name of Yahweh the "Shem Hamaphoresh," which means it is the name that is unique and distinctive to Him.

The fact that He is called by God's proper name, His covenant name, His memorial name (q.v. Exodus 3:14ff), also makes quick work of your rather inept appeal to the fact that Moses would appear like God to Pharaoh, etc.

In fact, I have been generous here thus far. There is much more I could have said. For example, the same one that Hosea calls both "the Angel" and "the LORD God of hosts" is identified as the one who found Jacob at Bethel. But who was it that appeared to Jacob in Bethel?

"10 And Jacob went out from Beer- sheba, and went toward Haran. 11 And he lighted upon the place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took one of the stones of the place, and put it under his head, and lay down in that place to sleep. 12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. 13 And, behold, the LORD STOOD BESIDE HIM, and said: 'I am the LORD, the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac. The land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed. 14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south. And in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. 15 And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee whithersoever thou goest, and will bring thee back into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.' 16 And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said: 'Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not.' 17 And he was afraid, and said: 'How full of awe is this place! this is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.' 18 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put under his head, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. 19 And he called the name of that place Beth- el, {That is, The house of God.} but the name of the city was Luz at the first. 20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying: 'If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, 21 so that I come back to my father's house in peace, then shall the LORD be my God, 22 and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God's house; and of all that Thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto Thee." (Genesis 28, JPS)

Speaking of this event later, Jacob says the following:

"11 And the angel of God said unto me in the dream: Jacob; and I said: Here am I. 12 And he said: 'Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the he- goats which leap upon the flock are streaked, speckled, and grizzled; for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee. 13 I am the God of BETH- EL, where thou didst anoint a pillar, where thou didst vow a vow unto Me. Now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy nativity.'" (Genesis 31, JPS)

"1 And God said unto Jacob: 'Arise, go up to BETH-EL, and dwell there; and make there an altar unto God, who appeared unto thee when thou didst flee from the face of Esau thy brother.' 2 Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him: 'Put away the strange gods that are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments; 3 and let us arise, and go up to BETH-EL; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went....6 So Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan-- the same is BETH-EL -- he and all the people that were with him. 7 And he built there an altar, and called the place EL- BETH- EL, {That is, The God of Beth- el. } because there God was revealed unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother. 8 And Deborah Rebekah's nurse died, and she was buried below Beth- el under the oak; and the name of it was called Allon- bacuth. {That is, The oak of weeping.} 9 And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came from Paddan- aram, and blessed him. 10 And God said unto him: 'Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name'; and He called his name Israel. 11 And God said unto him: 'I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; 12 and the land which I gave unto Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.' 13 And God WENT UP from him in the place where He spoke with him. 14 And Jacob set up a pillar in the place where He spoke with him, a pillar of stone, and he poured out a drink- offering thereon, and poured oil thereon. 15 And Jacob called the name of the place where God spoke with him, Beth-el." (Genesis 35, JPS)

The OT certainly tells us that God is not a man (ish, adam), as in passages like the ones you cited, but that does not mean that God could not appear as a man or assume the form or likeness of a man if He so chose to do so. Read ‘em and weep:

“Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud and STOOD at the doorway of the tent, and He called Aaron and Miriam. When they had both come forward, 6 He said,‘Hear now My words:If there is a prophet among you,I, the Lord, shall make Myself known to him in a vision.I shall speak with him in a dream.7 Not so, with My servant Moses,He is faithful in all My household;8 With him I speak MOUTH TO MOUTH,Even openly, and not in dark sayings,And he beholds THE FORM OF THE LORD.Why then were you not afraidTo speak against My servant, against Moses?’” (Numbers 12)

And:

26 Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was A FIGURE WITH THE APPEARANCE OF A MAN. 27 Then I noticed from the appearance of His loins and upward something like glowing metal that looked like fire all around within it, and from the appearance of His loins and downward I saw something like fire; and there was a radiance around Him. 28 As the appearance of the rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the surrounding radiance. Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell on my face and heard a voice speaking. (Ezekiel 1)

And:

Who is this King of glory? Lord Jehovah, the powerful and the mighty MAN; Lord Jehovah, the mighty MAN and the warrior. Psalm 24:8 (See also Zephaniah 1:14 and 3:17)

And:

The LORD is a MAN of war; the LORD is His name. (Exodus 15:3)

On the last passage, here is the following from your Talmud:

QUOTE -- And said R. Yohanan, “What is the meaning of the verse of Scripture, ‘I saw by night, and behold a man riding upon a red horse, and he stood among the myrtle trees that were in the bottom’ (Zech. 1:8)?”

What is the meaning of, ‘I saw by night’? The Holy One, blessed be he, sought to turn the entire world into night.

‘And behold a man riding’-‘man’ refers only to the Holy One, blessed be he, as it is said, ‘The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is his name’ (Ex. 15:3)

‘On a red horse’-the Holy One, blessed be he, sought to turn the entire world to blood. When, however, he saw Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, he cooled off, as it is said, ‘And he stood among the myrtle trees that were in the deep.’ -- END QUOTE

Do I need to give you the reference for this as well?Or can I assume that since you are the one educating me that you already know where it can be found?

Anthony Rogers Your fellow Christian asked me to learn about his religion first before I talk. So I decided to take his advice before I respond further, being that I see you’re a genius I’m going to ask you. I found this site

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm

that can teach me, however I don’t want to use it unless it meets with your approval so if I quote from it you don’t say it’s not your approved site.

Hey guys, just a heads up, i was reading the article Pete posted, and i was actually a bit mortified at the response to the notion that Jesus is Who the Jews should follow. The fact is we did persecute them throughout the ages, and they remember it quite vividly, even though weve forgotten. What im saying is, be as respectful and gentle as possible, it seems theres still some animosity. Plus, unlike the muslims who cry wolf every time we suggest muhammed sucked, we actually did legitimately bad things to them. Fortunately, the debate, while heated, has remained mostly respectful, but lets remind ourselves of a few basic things:1. Both sides have had our most cherished beliefs challenged, and we seek to defend, and we must. This is really important, because whoever is wrong would just not be worshipping the one true G_d.2. There is evidence for either, which means we must weigh the evidence for both, as a whole, and on each issue.Thanks everyone.Ps Peter, i know our ideas sound weird, but i guarantee you we Christians didnt pull them out of our butt. Whether or not were correct, we looked at the facts, what the bible says literally, metaphorically, and what the extra biblical evidence comments. I would investigate the resurrection most of all if you want to kill Christianity, thats the reason the first disciples maintained faith in Jesus against all odds, and the reason david and i are Christians now too.

"The fact is we did persecute them throughout the ages, and they remember it quite vividly, even though weve forgotten."

you are correct that Christians in the west have persecuted Jews through out the centuries. This is a horrible stain on Christianity as a whole.

My western ancestors did horrible un thinkable things, that I as a Christian look back on history with shame and disgust.

However and this is a big however nothing happens in a vacume.

"Christian" Anti semistism is a phenomena of the west.

As I stated nothing happens in a vacume, remember it was Jews who under Roman protection and Authority persecuted Christians. Jews who embraced Christ where thrown out of the Synagogues and handed over to Romans to face horrid persecution, torture and death.

After they revolted against Jesus , they revolted twice against Rome, and it was a non Christian Rome who banished Jews from ever living in Jerusalem. Except to return once a year and stand outside the gates to morn.

It is the Talmudic Jews who wrote horrid things about Jesus and his followers. It is Rabinic Jews who persecute Jewish Christians to this day. Go on youtube and see for yourself.

Also take note in the bible how God raises up wicked evil men to bring about his wrath on the Nation of Israel for their Idolatry.

It was Christ who prophesied "Your house is left desolate."

I do not offer any of these things as an excuse for the bloody persecutions in the west. Or even state them as if to say "They got what they deserved". I only state them as a matter of fact that nothing happens in a vacume and that they are not as Innocent as they make themselves out to be.

Take for example our friend Pete here. What comes out of his mouth on a daily biases is slander, and blasphemy.

Ps Peter, i know our ideas sound weird, but i guarantee you we Christians didnt pull them out of our butt. Whether or not were correct, we looked at the facts, what the bible says literally, metaphorically, and what the extra biblical evidence comments. I would investigate the resurrection most of all if you want to kill Christianity, thats the reason the first disciples maintained faith in Jesus against all odds, and the reason david and i are Christians now too.

My response

Crujjy I guarantee you you Christians did pull them out of your butt. Actually you mislead the people in the facts. Just the other day your Christian Anthony Rogers gave me a web site and said this will teach you Christianity. Ok I went to the web site and what did I see this below. Your son part certainly did not come down from heaven. How do I know this because there has been a debate for hundreds of years if your god was born of a virgin or not.The Son’s Part: because we are not able to save ourselves from suffering eternal death because of our sin, He was not content to just "send down" laws and information about Himself while he remained aloof and unknown. He "came down" in the person of Jesus Christ, the Savior, in order to save mankind. Jesus said of himself,"I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me" (John 6:38)Writing the above verse conjures up an image of someone actually descending from heaven which the author is trying to foist on the public.

Your own most intellectual scholars of the whole world say the same thing. They have intellectual integrity. If you come to my room on paltalk I can prove every thing and show you how your hero Anthony Rogers has been refuted.

Not long after Christ's ascension into heaven, several histories of his life and doctrines, full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders, were composed by persons whose intentions perhaps were not bad, but whose writings discovered the greatest superstition and ignorance. Nor was this all; productions appeared which were imposed upon the world by fraudulent men, [such] as the writings of the holy apostles."

You spoke a big game in my room but kind of fisseld out there right from the begging.

Yup you guys got me

Ever figure out why the LORD called down fire and sulfur from the LORD in heaven?

Can you read English this has been answered in fact your, again, Anthony Rogers has refuted it for me.

Did you ever figure out why your god came to wrestle with Jacob? By the way the fact that you keep claiming that your god came to wrestle with Jacob disproves Christianity or makes it very very bad.

For one thing if he can come down from the sky now why couldn’t he come down later like the verse says here

"I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me" (John 6:38)

You will tell me well he had to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah. Don’t you claim that it was your god that gave the prophecy to Isaiah so he could have given a prophecy of descending from heaven and not born of a virgin.

Hey FMM long time no write. Kind of miss the days of playing in the snow with you lol.

Hope all is good.

Nightmare I might or might not. Don't know why you would ask since the only thing you had to say was as following.

"I don't know""We don't have Jewish Universities just Hebrew Schools""Boyarin is not a Orthodox Jew, he is not a scholar""Your all Christian Terrorists""The reason why God says let us Make Man in Our Image is because he was talking to the Earth."

As I stated nothing happens in a vacume, remember it was Jews who under Roman protection and Authority persecuted Christians. Jews who embraced Christ where thrown out of the Synagogues and handed over to Romans to face horrid persecution, torture and death.

My responseLet me explain it if some one kills some one and the court sentences him to death can others come and say that he is their god so he is allowed to kill you have no right to kill him. The Torah is explicit to kill false prophets. The Jews at that time claimed he was a false prophet. So it does not matter if a group comes and says well he is a true prophet or he is our god you cannot kill him.Radical Moderate wrote

Jews who embraced Christ where thrown out of the Synagogues and handed over to Romans to face horrid persecution, torture and death

My responseThey were certainly thrown out of the synagogue. Handed over to the romans maybe your account we don't know if that is true. By the way if at that time your gods followers were going to the Synagogue how come you christians don't go to the Synagogue.Radical Moderate wroteAfter they revolted against Jesus , they revolted twice against Rome, and it was a non Christian Rome who banished Jews from ever living in Jerusalem. Except to return once a year and stand outside the gates to morn.

My responseSo it seems it was the Jews who were martyrs.

Radical Moderate wroteIt is the Talmudic Jews who wrote horrid things about Jesus and his followers. It is Rabinic Jews who persecute Jewish Christians to this day. Go on youtube and see for yourself.

Again they claimed he was a false prophet. Don't you write horrible things about muslims I see it here every day. When you say their god is false they say you are blaspheming.Radical Moderate wrote

Also take note in the bible how God raises up wicked evil men to bring about his wrath on the Nation of Israel for their Idolatry.

http://www.born-again-christian.info/questions/answers.59.htm

My response

It seems that from this Christian web site that you are the idolaters. Also I am glad you admit that you were idolaters, since you claim they revolted against Rome against worshiping their false Idols it must have been your followers who were the Idol worshipers and as usual G-D punishes many for what a few have done read the story of Joshua when some one stole some booty.Are Orthodox Christians Christian?Q We know that Roman Catholics are full of idolatry, and will die in their sins, but I have heard very little commentary anywhere on the Orthodox church. Are they in the same situation? Michael

A Yes utterly doomed, 'Orthodox Christianity' (an eerily Orwellian designation) is just another production from Satan's religious theatre, masquerading as Christianity. They include the Eastern, Greek, and Russian Orthodox 'churches'.

It was Christ who prophesied "Your house is left desolate."My response

Your house will be left desolate is a prophecy.

Radical Moderate wroteI do not offer any of these things as an excuse for the bloody persecutions in the west. Or even state them as if to say "They got what they deserved". I only state them as a matter of fact that nothing happens in a vacume and that they are not as Innocent as they make themselves out to be.

My response

Actually it wasn't only the Jews who were persecuted. Oh so it was ok for you to destroy pagan temples but it wasn't ok for the Jews to throw you out of synagogues who called you pagans.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed. Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain...............Radical Moderate wrote

Take for example our friend Pete here. What comes out of his mouth on a daily biases is slander, and blasphemy.

My response

Again the muslims say the same thing about you.

Radical Moderate wroteBut you are right we are called to a higher standard.

My response

I can prove that your god sanctioned all this or should I say it is you Christians that proved it.

Women in Islam

American Freedom Law Center

America

The Truth about CAIR

FAQ Page

On this website, we engage Muslims and the foundations of Islam without trying to be "PC". We feel honesty is better than disguised language. As you can read on our FAQ, this is out of love, not out of hatred. Thanks, and we're looking forward to seeing your comments!